Congress will soon decide whether cameras, banned from federal courtrooms
since 1946, will be permitted to televise federal court proceedings.

The decision to vote on the bill comes after the House Judiciary Committee
approved the "Judicial Reform Act" by a voice vote and after Rep.
Joe Scarborough (R-FL), an important member of the influential class first
elected in 1994, announced his support. The bill, introduced by Rep. Steve
Chabot (R-OH) and Rep. Charles Schumer (D-NY), has bipartisan support.

48 states now presently permit some television coverage of state courts,
and no state has ever repealed a decision to allow TV coverage of its courts.

"It is appropriate that the decision to vote on this bill comes
during 'Crime Victims Month,' said Amy Ridenour, president of The National
Center for Public Policy Research, "because an open court system is
more likely to be responsive to the people who depend upon it. Victim of
the Oklahoma City bombing desperately wanted national TV coverage of the
trial of Timothy McVeigh, but it wasn't allowed. Even Fred Goldman and Johnnie
Cochran, two men who don't always agree about trials, both want camera coverage
of federal courts."

Under present law, TV coverage of federal proceedings at both the trial
and appellate level is now effectively banned, and television coverage of
federal civil proceedings is severely curtailed. Between 1991 and 1993 several
federal courts conducted a pilot television project with great success.
The project found that judges were neutral about allowing cameras, but after
experiencing televised proceedings firsthand, became more favorable to the
idea.

The National Center for Public Policy Research cites several reasons
why cameras should be allowed:

Studies in 28 states show that TV coverage of court proceedings has significant
social and educational benefits.

* Cameras allow citizens to see their judicial system at work. The public's
right to know is significantly enhanced by the presence of cameras in the
U.S. House (since 1977) and the U.S. Senate (since 1986).

* The Founding Fathers intended public access to courtrooms, desiring
courtrooms large enough to hold entire communities, and advocating, according
to the journals of the Continental Congress, holding trials "before
as many people as chuse to attend."

* The Supreme Court has ruled, in Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia
(1980), that "the First Amendment can be read as protecting the right
of everyone to attend trials," and said in Chandler v. Florida
(1981) that the presence of cameras in a criminal trial is not a denial
of due process.

* 48 states already allow cameras in the courtroom.

* Cameras in the courtroom benefit the victims of crimes. Victims of
the Oklahoma City bombing, for instance, were adamant that they -- and
the world -- be permitted to watch the trial of Timothy McVeigh.

The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, former Attorney
General Griffin Bell, and scores of columnists and policy analysts have
endorsed cameras in the courtroom. The New York Times said: "The
Court is not some private club. It is not supposed to be mysterious to the
public it serves. Making it more accessible, and promoting greater public
understanding of the complex questions it addresses, is the best way to
honor the institution."